IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jconrs/doi10.1086-664498.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effect of Ordering Decisions by Choice-Set Size on Consumer Search

Author

Listed:
  • Jonathan Levav
  • Nicholas Reinholtz
  • Claire Lin

Abstract

Consumers frequently engage in sequential decisions. This article explores whether the order of these decisions can influence the manner in which consumers search through the possible choice options. Results from five studies suggest that ordering decisions by increasing (vs. decreasing) choice-set size leads to greater search depth (measured by both sampling count and decision time). Initial, smaller choice sets in increasing sequences appear to initiate a maximizing mind-set, which then persists even as participants encounter later, larger choice sets. These participants report a greater desire to maximize and are less satisfied with their decisions, consistent with research on chronic maximizers. In addition, they continue to exhibit maximizing behavior in subsequent, unrelated tasks, supporting a mind-set account of the differences in search. In sum, decision makers are proposed to be "sticky adapters": initial decision strategies seem to constrain the extent to which they adapt to new contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonathan Levav & Nicholas Reinholtz & Claire Lin, 2012. "The Effect of Ordering Decisions by Choice-Set Size on Consumer Search," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 39(3), pages 585-599.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:jconrs:doi:10.1086/664498
    DOI: 10.1086/664498
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/664498
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/664498
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/664498?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kristen E. Duke & On Amir, 2023. "The Importance of Selling Formats: When Integrating Purchase and Quantity Decisions Increases Sales," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(1), pages 87-109, January.
    2. Saad, Gad & Sejean, Richard & Greengross, Gil & Cherkas, Lynn, 2020. "Are identical twins more similar in their decision making styles than their fraternal counterparts?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 638-643.
    3. Meißner, Martin & Oppewal, Harmen & Huber, Joel, 2020. "Surprising adaptivity to set size changes in multi-attribute repeated choice tasks," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 163-175.
    4. Lieberman, Alicea & Amir, On & Carmon, Ziv, 2023. "The entrenchment effect: Why people persist with less-preferred behaviors," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    5. Dragos Ilie & Laura Ungureanu, 2014. "Survey on the Viewpoints of Credit Beneficiaries Qua Consumers in Order to increase Banking Accountability," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 16(35), pages 138-138, February.
    6. Kaeun Kim & Elizabeth Miller, 2017. "Vulnerable maximizers: The role of decision difficulty," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(5), pages 516-526, September.
    7. Catherine Waddams Price & Catherine Webster & Minyan Zhu, 2013. "Searching and Switching: Empirical estimates of consumer behaviour in regulated markets," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Competition Policy (CCP) 2013-11, Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    8. Ioana Marinescu & Nadav Klein & Andrew Chamberlain & Morgan Smart, 2018. "Incentives Can Reduce Bias in Online Reviews," NBER Working Papers 24372, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Ma, Jingjing & Lin, Yu (Anna) & Ein-Gar, Danit, 2023. "Charitable maximizers: The impact of the maximizing mindset on donations to human recipients," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 417-434.
    10. Mittal, Banwari, 2016. "The maximizing consumer wants even more choices: How consumers cope with the marketplace of overchoice," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 361-370.
    11. Juliano Laran & Eva Buechel, 2017. "Mental Resources Increase Preference for Dissimilar Experiences," Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 2(1), pages 123-135.
    12. Bayuk, Julia Belyavsky & Patrick, Vanessa M., 2021. "Is the uphill road the one more taken? How task complexity prompts action on non-pressing tasks," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 436-449.
    13. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:5:p:516-526 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Fan, Ying & Fu, Yuqi & Yang, Zan & Chen, Ming, 2023. "Search Frictions in Rental Markets: Evidence from Urban China," Working Paper Series 23/11, Royal Institute of Technology, Department of Real Estate and Construction Management & Banking and Finance.
    15. Reich, Taly & Savary, Jennifer & Kupor, Daniella, 2021. "Evolving choice sets: The effect of dynamic (vs. static) choice sets on preferences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 147-157.
    16. Xia, Lan & Bechwati, Nada Nasr, 2021. "Maximizing what? The effect of maximizing mindset on the evaluation of product bundles," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 314-325.
    17. Misuraca, Raffaella & Fasolo, Barbara, 2018. "Maximizing versus satisficing in the digital age: disjoint scales and the case for “construct consensus”," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 84324, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jconrs:doi:10.1086/664498. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jcr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.